alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-30372 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. VINCENT THOMAS Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:07-CR-101-1
Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Defendant-Appellant Vincent Thomas pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to distribution of five grams or more of crack cocaine and distribution of 50 grams or more of crack cocaine. He was sentenced to the statutory minimum of 240 months in prison. Thomas asserts that the district court, in denying his request for appointment of a Federal Public Defender (FPD), effectively deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, resulting in a constitutional “structural error” mandating reversal of his United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December 2, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 08-30372

2 conviction. Relying in part on the Supreme Court’s decision in U nited Statesv. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006), Thomas argues that because a “structural error” occurred, no additional prejudice or harm need be shown. Gonzalez-Lopez is not applicable to the instant case. The court did not deny Thomas his counsel of choice; it merely deni ed his request for new appointed counsel. Moreover, unlike the defendant in Gonzalez-Lopez, Thomas sought to have his retained counsel removed from the case and was not seeking to be represented by any particular retained attorney. Additionally, the government conceded in Gonzal ez-Lopez that the trial court had erroneously deprived the defendant of his right to counsel of his choosing. Gonzalez-Lope z, 548 U.S. at 148. The government makes no such concession here. Neither does Thomas assert that he was deprived ofcounsel ofhis choice. Rather, he merely contends that he was entitled to new appointed counsel because he was dissatisfied with the services of retained counsel. Thomas’s claims do not amount to a deprivation of counsel of choice as contemplated by the Court in Gonzalez-Lopez. At most, they amount to garden-variety claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Thomas, however, doesnot allegethat counsel was ineffective under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), or that his plea was involuntary, unknowing, or the result of incompetent advice of counsel. To the extent that Thomas suggests that there was a basis for withdrawing his guilty plea, such a contention is without merit. Thomas fails to show a fair and just reason for withdrawal of his guilty plea. See United States v. Powell , 354 F.3d 362, 370 (5th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). Furthermore, our review of the rearraignment hearing reveals no basis for withdrawal of the plea. See Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 244 (1969). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
1

The Honorable Donald E. O’Brien, United States District Judge for the

Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-3369

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Francisco Perez-Alejo, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: February 13, 2003

 Filed: February 21, 2003

___________

Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Francisco Perez-Alejo pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation, in

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and possession of a firearm by an illegal alien, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5). The district court1

 sentenced him to 41 months

imprisonment and 2 years supervised release on both counts, to be served

concurrently. On appeal, Perez-Alejo argues that the district court plainly erred in
-2-

failing to group the two offenses under U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(a), because they involved

the same victim (society at large) and the same transaction.

We find no plain error. See United States v. Scott, 243 F.3d 1103, 1108 (8th

Cir. 2001) (standard of review). The two offenses address different societal interests.

Thus, they cannot be grouped. See U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2, comment. (n.2) (where victim

is societal interest that has been harmed, counts are grouped together only where

societal interests are closely related); United States v. Barron-Rivera, 922 F.2d 549,

554-55 (9th Cir. 1991) (§ 922(g) protects society against those deemed unqualified

to possess firearms, while § 1326 is designed to enforce immigration laws); see also

United States v. Herrera, 265 F.3d 349, 353 (6th Cir. 2001) (district court properly

did not group illegal-reentry and firearm offenses because purposes behind laws are

dissimilar); United States v. Salgado-Ocampo, 159 F.3d 322, 328 (7th Cir. 1998)

(same); United States v. Baeza-Suchil, 52 F.3d 898, 900 (10th Cir. 1995) (same).

The judgment is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# C_2008137EN.01001101.xml

| 4.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 137/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137/11

---

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITIONS EPSO/AST/58-63/08

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITIONS

(2008/C 137/08)

The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competitions:

| — | EPSO/AST/58/08 — Mechanical Engineering, |
| --- | --- |

—

EPSO/AST/58/08 — Mechanical Engineering,

| — | EPSO/AST/59/08 — Laboratory Technical Support, |
| --- | --- |

—

EPSO/AST/59/08 — Laboratory Technical Support,

| — | EPSO/AST/60/08 — Civil and Electrical Engineering |
| --- | --- |

—

EPSO/AST/60/08 — Civil and Electrical Engineering

to recruit laboratory assistants (AST1) in the field of research and nuclear energy, mainly for technical support and laboratory work,

and

| — | EPSO/AST/61/08 — Laboratory and Infrastructure Technicians, |
| --- | --- |

—

EPSO/AST/61/08 — Laboratory and Infrastructure Technicians,

| — | EPSO/AST/62/08 — Technicians in the nuclear field, |
| --- | --- |

—

EPSO/AST/62/08 — Technicians in the nuclear field,

| — | EPSO/AST/63/08 — Nuclear Inspectors |
| --- | --- |

—

EPSO/AST/63/08 — Nuclear Inspectors

are being held to recruit assistants (AST3) in the nuclear field.

The competition notices are published in Official Journal C 137 A of 4 June 2008 in English, French and German only.

Further details can be found on the EPSO website: http://europa.eu/epso

---
ex4_27futureworksammendment.htm


    
      
        

      

    

    Exhibit
4.27

     

    AMENDMENT TO PIGGYBACK
REGISTRATION RIGHTS AGREEMENT

    


    


    THIS AMENDMENT TO PIGGYBACK
REGISTRATION RIGHTS AGREEMENT (“Amendment”), dated as of July 9, 2008, is
made and entered into by and between Focus Enhancements, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the “Company”) and FutureWorks PR, Inc. (the
“Purchaser”).

    


    RECITALS

    


    Whereas, the Company and the Purchaser
are parties to that certain Piggyback Registration Rights Agreement, dated as of the 1st day
of March 2008 (the “Agreement”).

    


    Whereas, Section 6 of the Agreement
authorizes the amendment of the Agreement by a written instrument signed by the
Company and the Holders who hold 50% interest of the Warrant Shares as of such
date, which, as of this date is the Purchaser.

    


    Whereas, the Company and the Purchaser
desire to amend the Agreement so that the definition of Registrable Securities
is limited to Warrant Shares.

    


    Whereas, capitalized terms used, but
not otherwise defined, shall have the meaning as set forth in the
Agreement.

    


    AGREEMENT

    


    Now therefore, for good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the
Company and Purchaser agree as follows:

    


    1. The
definition of the term, Registrable Securities, in Section 1 of the Agreement is
hereby replaced in its entirety by the following:

     

    “Registrable
Securities means the Warrant Shares purchased upon exercise of the Warrant as
set forth in the document to which this Agreement is Exhibit
1.”

     

    2. All other
terms of the Agreement shall remain unchanged.

     

    3. The
Purchaser hereby represents and warrants to Company that its is authorized to
execute this Amendment.

     

    4. This
Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts and delivered by facsimile
transmission or by PDF, each of which shall constitute an original, but all of
which taken together shall be one and the same instrument.

     

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have
caused this Amendment to the Piggyback Registration Rights Agreement to be
executed as of the date set forth above.

     

    


     

    
      	
              FOCUS
      ENHANCEMENTS, INC.

               

            	
              PURCHASER

               

            
	 
      	
              FUTUREWORKS
      PR, INC.

            
	
               

              By:  /s/ Gary
      Williams                                                      

            	
               

              By:
      /s/ Brian
      Solis

            
	
              Name:
      Gary Williams

            	
              Name:
      Brian Solis

            
	
              Title:
      EVP of Finance & CFO

            	
              Title:
      President
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 221 

Supporting the goals and ideals of ‘‘National Campus Safety Awareness 

Month’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 28, 2005 

Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. SPECTER) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2005 

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the goals and ideals of ‘‘National Campus Safety 

Awareness Month’’. 

Whereas college and university campuses are subject to criminal threats both from within and outside their borders; 

Whereas under the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act a total of 

86 homicides, 7,648 sex offenses, 9,649 aggravated assaults, and 3,590 arsons were reported on-campus from 

2000 to 2002; 

Whereas between 1⁄5 and 1⁄4 of female students become the 

victim of a completed or attempted rape, usually by 

someone they know, during their college careers; 
2 

SRES 221 ATS 

Whereas each year more than 70,000 students between the 

ages of 18 and 24 are victims of alcohol-related sexual 

assault; 

Whereas each year more than 600,000 students between the 

ages of 18 and 24 are assaulted by another student who 

has been drinking; 

Whereas 1,400 college students between the ages of 18 and 

24 die each year from alcohol-related unintentional injuries, including motor vehicle crashes; 

Whereas each year there is approximately $2.8 million dollars 

worth of property damage from fires on-campus; 

Whereas Security On Campus, Inc., a national group dedicated to promoting safety and security on college and 

university campuses, and the University of WisconsinGreen Bay Student Government Association have designated September 2005 as National Campus Safety 

Awareness Month; and 

Whereas the designation of National Campus Safety Awareness Month provides an opportunity for colleges and universities to inform students about existing campus crime 

trends, campus security policies, crime prevention techniques, fire safety, and alcohol and other drug education, 

prevention, and treatment programs: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate supports the goals and 

2 ideals of ‘‘National Campus Safety Awareness Month’’. 

Æ
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9106 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2024 

Received 

AN ACT 

To direct the Director of the United States Secret Service 

to apply the same standards for determining the number 

of agents required to protect Presidents, Vice Presidents, 

and major Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

HR 9106 RDS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Enhanced Presidential 

3 Security Act of 2024’’. 

4 SEC. 2. UNIFORM STANDARDS FOR SECRET SERVICE PRO5 TECTION OF PRESIDENTS, VICE PRESIDENTS, 

6 AND MAJOR PRESIDENTIAL AND VICE PRESI7 DENTIAL CANDIDATES. 

8 The Director of the United States Secret Service 

9 shall apply the same standards for determining the num10 ber of agents required to protect Presidents, Vice Presi11 dents, and major Presidential and Vice Presidential can12 didates. 

13 SEC. 3. REPORT. 

14 Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 

15 of this Act, the Director of the United States Secret Serv16 ice shall conduct a comprehensive review of the provision 

17 of protection by the Secret Service for Presidents, Vice 

18 Presidents, former Presidents, and major Presidential and 

19 Vice Presidential candidates, and submit to the Committee 

20 on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the 

21 Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate a report that 

22 includes the findings from such review, along with any rec23 ommendations for improving the provision of protection. 

24 SEC. 4. DEFINITION. 

25 In this Act, the term ‘‘major Presidential and Vice 

26 Presidential candidates’’ has the meaning given such term 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

HR 9106 RDS

1 in section 3056 of title 18, United States Code, and in2 cludes any other Presidential or Vice Presidential can3 didate for whom the President has otherwise authorized 

4 the Secret Service to protect. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 20, 

2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         1203286
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2067815
<ALLOWANCES>                                    678590
<INVENTORY>                                    1679897
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4365433
<PP&E>                                         3418763
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1384635
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 9280333
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1810118
<BONDS>                                         105272
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                      53742005
<OTHER-SE>                                  (46377063)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   9280333
<SALES>                                        4163167
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               4163167
<CGS>                                          2007855
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3900527
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (42212)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (11034)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              106930
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 197922
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             197922
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    197922
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 10.4
  
   Re:
Southern Europe Region  Toreador Resources CorporationMaintenance Ratio Temporary Waiver
 1.
    
    Reference is made to the Loan and Guarantee Agreement dated December 28, 2006 (the
Loan and Guarantee Agreement) between Toreador Resources Corporation (Toreador or the
Company), Toreador Turkey Ltd., Toreador Romania Ltd., Madison Oil France SAS, Toreador
Energy France SCS, Toreador International Holding Limited Liability Company, and
International Finance Corporation (IFC). Unless otherwise defined in this letter, terms
defined in the Loan and Guarantee Agreement shall have the meanings ascribed thereto when
used in this letter.2.
    
    We also refer to your request, dated February 28, 2008, of a temporary waiver in
respect of Section 6.01 (m)(v) of the Loan of Guarantee Agreement.3.
    
    In furtherance of the above, IFC consents to:
 (i)
    
    the temporary waiver of the requirement in Section 6.01 (m)(v) that
the Company maintain an interest Coverage Ratio of at least 3.0:1.0; provided that
the Company maintains EBITDAX to net interest expense ratio of at least 2.7:1.0
until July 2, 2008 (as per the waiver granted in May 2007, EBITDAX is used a proxy to EBITDA in the Interest Coverage Ratio calculation until July 2, 2008),
and EBITDA to net interest expense ratio of at least 2.7:1.0 during the remaining
period of the waiver effectiveness. This waiver is effective until March 8, 2009.
 4.
    
    No provision of this letter shall be deemed (i) to be a consent, waiver or
modification of any term or condition of the Loan and Guarantee Agreement or the
Transaction Documents, except as expressly provided in paragraph 3 above,




---



##### 



or (ii) to prejudice any rights or remedies which IFC may have now or in the future under
or in connection with any of the Loan and Guarantee Agreement and/or the Transaction
Documents.
 INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION
 
 rd
 /s/ Charles J. Campise
TOREADOR RESOURCES CORPORATION  Charles J. Campise
 /s/ Charles J. Campise
TOREADOR TURKEY LTD.  Charles J. Campise
 /s/ Charles J. Campise
TOREADOR ROMANIA LTD.  Charles J. Campise
 /s/ Charles J. Campise
MADISON OIL FRANCE SAS  Charles J. Campise




---



##### 



/s/ Charles J. Campise
TOREADOR ENERGY FRANCE S.C.S.  Charles J. Campise
 /s/ Charles J. Campise
TOREADOR INTERNATIONAL HOLDING
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY  Charles J. Campise
No. 56122.

protest 159026-K and 170021-K (New York).

#### Drueding Brothers and Schildkraut Bros. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8963 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8963

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 521 Thorn Street in Sewickley, Pennsylvania, as the ``Mary Elizabeth 
                 `Bettie' Cole Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 9, 2024

 Mr. Deluzio introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
               Committee on Oversight and Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 521 Thorn Street in Sewickley, Pennsylvania, as the ``Mary Elizabeth 
                 `Bettie' Cole Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. MARY ELIZABETH ``BETTIE'' COLE POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 521 Thorn Street in Sewickley, Pennsylvania, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Mary Elizabeth `Bettie' Cole Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Mary 
Elizabeth `Bettie' Cole Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 97-101

________________________________________________________________________

INVESTMENT

Treaty Between the

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

and MONGOLIA 

Signed at Washington October 6, 1994

with

Annex and Protocol
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent

evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof

or authentication thereof.”
 MONGOLIA

 Investment

Treaty signed at Washington October 6, 1994;

Transmitted by the President of the United States of America

 to the Senate June 26, 1995 (Treaty Doc. 104-10,

 104

th Congress, 1st Session);

Reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

 March 27, 1996 (Senate Executive Report No. 104-15,

 104

th Congress, 2d Session);

Advice and consent to ratification by the Senate

 June 27, 1996;

Ratified by the President September 12, 1996;

Ratifications exchanged at Ulaanbaatar December 2, 1996;

Entered into force January 1, 1997.

With annex and protocol.
Before the Second Division,

August 14, 1939

No. 41932.

#### Protest 455967-G of Consolidated Import Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of laces similar to those involved in *Amrein*v. *United Stales*(T. D. 49551). The claim at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 was therefore sustained.
150 SOUTH NINTH STREET 

EL CENTRO, CA 92243-2850 

July 15, 2014 

Gerardo C. Rios 

AIR POLL 

Chief, Air Permits Office (Air-3) 

EPA Region 9 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 941 05 

SUBJECT: 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix S Applicability 

Dear Mr. Rios: 

DISTRICT 

TELEPHONE: (760) 482-4606 

FAX: (760) 353-9904 

This letter is in response to your request for additional information regarding compliance 

with the federal new source review (NSR) requirements for fine particulate matter 

(PM2.s) in the interim while requirements consistent with this national ambient air quality 

standard (NAAQS) is incorporated into our NSR program. In particular, you have asked 

us to acknowledge the applicability of 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 51, 

Appendix S to new and modified major sources during the period prior to EPA's 

approval of a NSR program applicable to our PM2.5 non-attainment area. 

As you are aware, a portion of the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District is 

currently classified as a moderate nonattainment area under the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Thus, a revised NSR program submittal was due to EPA on December 14, 2012. 

Accordingly, we revised Rule 207 and ARB submitted the rules to EPA for SIP approval 

on January 21, 2014. 

Until EPA takes a final action to approve our revised NSR program, we acknowledge 

that the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S apply to any new major 

source or major modification of a major source, as defined therein, for sources emitting 

direct PM2.s. or sulfur oxides (SOx) or NOx as PM2.5 precursors. 

cerely n 

~ APCO 

Imperial County APCD 

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY I AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER